Escaping the Tyranny of the GC: std.rcstring, first blood

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

I'm afk (on a phone) for 2 days, but I'll get back to this.
On 25 Sep 2014 15:30, "Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 9/24/14, 7:16 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Thanks for answering. I've figured I have no meaningful answer to this,
> but allow me to elaborate why out of respect.
>
> Apologies for letting go of the horses a little. An explanation (but not
> an excuse) is that Walter and I are humans and as much as we do our best to
> keep levelheaded at all times we get a tad frustrated.
>
> These are heady days for D. We're more optimistic than ever about future
> prospects and possibilities, which we hope to confirm publicly soon. We
> have a very strong vision (C++ and GC, C++ and GC...) and we have designs
> realizing it that we believe we can make work. This is literally the best
> time in the history of D for the community to help us. Amid this feverish
> preparation (we talk some 15-45 minutes on the phone every day), we find
> ourselves stumped by the occasional idle chatter on inconsequential matters
> that sometimes descends into a spiral of gratuitous negativity. Or wine
> party, as graciously dubbed by Walter.
>
> I have difficulty communicating with you, to the extent that I very
> candidly have no idea what you're trying to accomplish, and how you propose
> language technology to help you. But I think it's possible to improve on
> that.
>
> One simple rule of thumb is to pop one level up and describe the task
> you're trying to accomplish, instead of describing at low level what you
> believe would be obviously the language-based solution. Two examples:
>
> 1. You say "if ref were part of a type" and not only say it, but also
> build on the good presumed consequence of it. That can't be done in D,
> simple as that. We can't flip a switch and do it. The ripples throughout
> the entire fabric of the language would essentially transform it in a whole
> different language, with most rules subtly different from today's. You
> yourself confessed "I'm not a language developer, I don't want to be." Then
> the best route is to focus on the high-level task as opposed on what you
> believe would be the language change fixing it. Please take this as kindly
> as I mean it: most language-space solutions you propose are alien and
> unworkable.
>
> 2. You wrongly believe language solutions are innately better than
> engineering solutions. Please understand that no amount of notation would
> save you from the issues you encounter with RefCounted. Also, your notion
> that optimization technology only kicks in for language-baked artifacts is
> wrong. Please trust us on this: YES, we can define increment and decrement
> in libraries in such a way they're elided if they cancel themselves out. I
> find it very difficult to sympathize with you completely dismissing library
> engineering solutions for vague reasons, which, from what I can tell, no
> amount of built-in notation can save you.
>
> What I hope to come out of this is a clear idea of what you're trying to
> accomplish (not "I want ref part of the type", but "I want to write a
> framework that does ..."), and how you find the current offering in the
> language + standard library + your own custom libraries wanting. Can we get
> that kind of dialog going?
>
>
> Andrei
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140925/510a2f88/attachment-0001.html>